Ticket Construction. The battle of the Pro's vs. On Air Analysts. Who's right?

[castaway01]

Andy Asaro, ITP, and Nitro all on the same side...it's the holy trinity of useless assholes.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ordinarily, I would take the above post down.

However, since ITP started the name calling (albeit using a milder form, "dolts"), I will allow just this one to remain.

No more name calling, please.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Andy Asaro, ITP, and Nitro all on the same side...it's the holy trinity of useless assholes.

Is it about sides or is it about ticket construction and gambling?

Twitter

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 05-08-2021 at 10:44 PM.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Is it about sides or is it about ticket construction and gambling?

No need to ask him that can't you see his (or her) Avatar name.
Obviously it suggests that he has a lot of confidence in himself and distinguishes himself by making comments based on a total lack of written comprehension.

As far as the PA statement goes: He just loves playing favorites!
Sorry CJ I left you out but not on purpose.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Can you imagine missing out on a sizeable pick-5 score because you left out the winning 8/5 shot in the final leg due to its "-EV" underlaid status? Is that what "professional play" is all about?

IMO...it's quite possible to retain "expected value" on the total wager, even if you include an underlay or two in the sequence(s). You cast a wide net to catch the big fish...but the minnows keep you fed until the big fish arrives.

1. If you are giving that 8/5 shot 32% of the race, he's an underlay to win about equal to the track take but he's usable in any horizontal as long as there two value added legs in the same combination.

2. If you are giving him 15% or 20% of the race and would keying against him in the win and vertical pools (as you should be), that potentially creates a great opportunity in the horizontal also. It's a value added leg (of which you need 2).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

What I don't see addressed much directly is that you are rarely ever going to have a horizontal bet, even a P3, where all the horses are value plays. You have to figure out which combinations are value that include some horses that are bet too heavily in the straight pools. How many can you use, which ones really drag down the overall value of a ticket, etc. Playing those bets is much different that playing straight pools and figuring out if one horse offers value. Even which leg a race is will change what kind of horses you might want to use. Singling early and spreading late is what many do for example, so I'd guess there is value if you single is late in the sequence.

I agree with you.

I'm not especially strong at identifying betting patterns in horizontal and vertical pools when you don't see the playoffs, but I'm pretty good at estimating win odds. There will obviously be strong a correlation there.

I start by classifying each horse as "O", "N" and "U".

O (overlay) = any horse I expect to add value to a leg. That's usually a horse I'd consider making a win bet on.

N (neutral) = any horse (usually contenders) I expect to be bet in line with their chances that would lose approximately the track take on a win bet.

U (underlay) = any horse that's likely to be a huge underlay that I would key against to win and in the verticals.

I need at least 2 Os on every combination and can use as many Ns as I want in legs where I have no Os.

For a Pick 4, this would be a typical simple case. I love a horse in the 1st leg, have no value oriented opinion in legs 2-3 and used some contenders, and hate some favorite in the 4th leg and used 3 contenders. I'll also probably bet the 1st leg to win and try to crush that 4th leg in the verticals.

O/NNN/NNNN/OOO

If I can add any insights into betting patterns over and above the likely odds that's better.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I am not debating that ticket construction is the key to making money in pick 4's, pick 5's etc. I will say that how Peter Lurie or Andy Serling or Megan Devine or Ron Nicoletti play their pick 4's, pick 5's and pick 6;s have zero effect on handle and whether winning players are created. This is ridiculous. Nobody past their first lecture in horse racing 101 even cares what these people do in their pick 4's or pick 5's. They may listen to their reasoning and if something make sense they may add a horse or 2, but that is about it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the assertion any public handicapper's picks and plays have any effect on handle.This is both true for having a positive overall effect, or a negative one.

The assertion posited that any public handicapper's plays are "killing the game" cannot be proven. Displaying charts of handle declines over any period of time, or showing TB handle is flat, or down counting for inflation, or fails to come close to sports betting handle trajectory, while making the claim handle declines are proof public handicappers or their tickets are "killing the game" or "burning out customers" is nothing more than "correlation without causation" because it's anecdotal at best.

To your last sentence I have 30 years of empirical evidence that concurs. I can't begin to count the times someone has written they used just one particular horse I made the case for they otherwise would have ignored and that helps them cash a ticket. This just happened Saturday with Lady Edith in the Mamzelle Stakes. There's no proving it's true but I've seen enough of these comments to agree the reasoning what most people care about, not the tickets.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

Wow...that's a weird pivot...it went from message being completely wrong to delivery being wrong.

Respectfully, whether the message is right or wrong, the delivery is often more important than the message.

Everyone has a choice in their messaging whether they are right and wrong:

The messenger can choose to be be nasty or demeaning in their messaging and right, but may not achieve much because the audience isn't interested in the method of delivery of the message.

The messenger can be humble and wrong and that will fail because the audience will stop following their advice.

The messenger can be nasty or demeaning in their messaging and be wrong and that's the quickest way to lose the audience.

The best choice IMO is to be humble and try to be right, articulating the message it in a positive way and leaving negativity at the door. This method achieves the best results and leaves both the messenger and audience feeling the best of all.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Respectfully, whether the message is right or wrong, the delivery is often more important than the message.

Everyone has a choice in their messaging whether they are right and wrong:

The messenger can choose to be be nasty or demeaning in their messaging and right, but may not achieve much because the audience isn't interested in the method of delivery of the message.

The messenger can be humble and wrong and that will fail because the audience will stop following their advice.

The messenger can be nasty or demeaning in their messaging and be wrong and that's the quickest way to lose the audience.

The best choice IMO is to be humble and try to be right, articulating the message it in a positive way and leaving negativity at the door. This method achieves the best results and leaves both the messenger and audience feeling the best of all.

More Drama? Nobody is questioning your handicapping ability. There's a difference between who you like and who you bet and you should already know that. Probably not the best idea to put out a $1 exacta play going 3 or 4 horses over 7 or 8 horses. That's teaching people how to lose and that's not cool

[ReplayRandall]

Quick questions for Ellis....If you were good enough to be a pro and earn all your income through wagering, would you quit your current job?...Would any public handicapper?....Do you know any that have?

Finally, how many "pros" do you personally know who's sole source of income is wagering?....How many do you think actually exist?....Do pros make themselves known to the public?....If so, WHY?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Quick questions for Ellis....If you were good enough to be a pro and earn all your income through wagering, would you quit your current job?...Would any public handicapper?....Do you know any that have?

Finally, how many "pros" do you personally know who's sole source of income is wagering?....How many do you think actually exist?....Do pros make themselves known to the public?....If so, WHY?

it's hard to get the money tax free and clean

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

it's hard to get the money tax free and clean

That's what beards are for.....

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Quick questions for Ellis....If you were good enough to be a pro and earn all your income through wagering, would you quit your current job?...Would any public handicapper?....Do you know any that have?

Finally, how many "pros" do you personally know who's sole source of income is wagering?....How many do you think actually exist?....Do pros make themselves known to the public?....If so, WHY?

Answers in order:
No.
I don't think so.
No.
Zero.
If you count teams, a few.
Not that I'm aware of but some do get on the radar. Mike Maloney is one example. The why is because he was passionate about the sport and industry so he was on the Player's Panel for the NHC and he wrote a book.

The bigger point is very interesting about sole source of income from wagering. I was lucky as a young man to meet a few people who were very important in the area of handicapping, wagering, pace and other aspects. These were Jim Quinn, Tom Brohamer, Dick Mitchell and Doc Sartin. At the time all were 1) bettors 2) Authors 3)teachers/mentors/seminar leaders and in come cases 4)responsible for putting some of their work into early handicapping programs. They all had multiple irons in the fire. I can't tell you why but that was a fact.

Back to your first question and my "no" answer, I love my current job. I wear a lot of hats and all are different. I get to work on product development. I get to interact with fans from newbies to more seasoned online and in person. I get to write blogs and try to share handicapping methodology sprinkled with my thoughts on how I plan to be the race.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

More Drama? Nobody is questioning your handicapping ability. There's a difference between who you like and HOW you bet and you should already know that. Probably not the best idea to put out a $1 exacta play going 3 or 4 horses over 7 or 8 horses. That's teaching people how to lose and that's not cool

How you bet not who you bet

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

More Drama? Nobody is questioning your handicapping ability. There's a difference between who you like and who you bet and you should already know that. Probably not the best idea to put out a $1 exacta play going 3 or 4 horses over 7 or 8 horses. That's teaching people how to lose and that's not cool

The claim anyone is teaching someone how to lose is just an opinion.
It might be valid but it's no less just an opinion because it can't be proven.

As many people have mentioned on this thread there are various levels of comfort and risk-tolerance. If a method isn't for you, I think the best thing to do is nothing, rather than demeaning it. Preach to your audience and leave others to preach to theirs.

If a public handicapper just gave out contenders, even with good analysis and sharing methodology, no fair odds for win bets and no suggestions on how they might bet the race, there's limited value in that as it doesn't appeal to the largest audience possible it in my opinion.

I could go on about various audiences and what they want and how I think it's best to provide a service but you're going to disagree no matter what I say. That's fine as long as we can agree to disagree.